(June 17, 2011 at 1:37 am)tackattack Wrote: There are plenty of studies..
Which are not repeatable, and often only publish the results that seem to support the hypothesis, thus suffering from confirmation bias.
(June 17, 2011 at 1:37 am)tackattack Wrote: why are they allowed to break the barrier of probability at all?
I think you misunderstand what it means for something to work no better than chance. It doesn't mean that the result of, say, guessing the outcome of 10 fair coin tosses, should be 5 correct and 5 incorrect every single time. It means that should be the average result. Sometimes a person may guess 10 correct, sometimes all 10 incorrect.
If you just ignore negative results, then it will look as though there's a real effect when there isn't.
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip